The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to tell him about the application and he therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the development will impact the amenity of his property and believes his home may lose value.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
In this case, the Council accepts it did not notify Mr X about the application as it should have. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on neighbouring properties. The report said the development would be well distanced from the nearby neighbours and would not have an undue impact on the amenity of the nearby properties.
Mr X says his home may lose value. But loss of value is not a material planning consideration. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the proposal and objected.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman